Welcome to the newest addition to the Compliance Podcast Network, Compliance and Coronavirus. In this episode, I am joined by James Anliot, Director of Healthcare Compliance Services at Affiliated Monitors, Inc. He is responsible for evaluating practice operations and developing internal compliance programs for both individual and organizational healthcare clients. We visit about issues around telehealth in the era of Covid-19.

Some of the highlights include:

  • How are Telehealth services are delivered?
  • How has the evaluation of physician services been changed by Telehealth?
  • What is the “physical examination and evaluation” and why is it so important in evaluating the quality of the care provided to the patient?
  • What is the role of insurers?
  • What has been the response of regulators?

Welcome to the Great Women in Compliance Podcast, co-hosted by Lisa Fine and Mary Shirley.

The Code of Conduct is kind of a big deal in any Compliance program.  It has been referred to as the cornerstone of a Compliance program and for that reason, it’s important to get it right.   Well that’s easier said than done when you’re trying to appeal to literally every employee and external stakeholder you have.  So we enlisted in some expert help.  Andrea Falcione of Rethink Compliance joins us for this two-part series which starts off taking a hard look at re-vamping Codes of Conduct (we assume you’ve already got one in place and aren’t starting from scratch) and the second installment takes a deep dive into Compliance policies.

In the Code episode we canvass considerations from the outset to get your approach right, discuss frequency of re-vamps, how codes have evolved and what marks a modern code in amongst several other nitty gritty points.  Yes folks, it’s a packed episode you won’t want to miss.

Have you heard that Lisa and Mary have published a book?  Yes, you can get your very own copy of “Sending the Elevator Back Down: What We’ve Learned From Great Women in Compliance” (CCI Press, 2020) on Amazon right now!  Enjoyed your copy?  Don’t forget to leave a review!

Join the Great Women in Compliance community on LinkedIn here.

Compliance into the Weeds is the only weekly podcast which takes a deep dive into a compliance related topic, literally going into the weeds to more fully explore a subject. In this episode Matt and Tom go into the weeds to look at the recent FCPA enforcement action involving the US banking and finance entity Goldman Sachs. Some of the issues we consider are:

  • One of the most bold, audacious bribery schemes ever.
  • Complete total and utter failure of compliance? Or something worse?
  • Blatant assistance in money-laundering.
  • How watches the watchers?
  • Has Goldman really done anything different?
  • Largest FCPA fine ever. 


See Matt’s blog posts on Radical ComplianceGoldman Sachs, FCPA and Internal Controls

See Tom’s exploration on the FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog

Part 1-Introduction

Part 2-Control Failures

Part 3-Fines and Penalties


In today’s edition of Daily Compliance News:

  • CFOs brace for more trade disruptions. (WSJ)
  • DOJ may block Visa purchase of Plaid. (WSJ)
  • The ghost of Howard Jarvis is flipping out. (NYT)
  • Can AirBnB get rid of its Animal House problem? (NYT)

In this podcast I am joined by AMI Managing Director Don Stern. We consider how defense counsel can work proactively with independent monitors to help clients who may have sustained an ethical or compliance violation or are under government scrutiny for allegations of illegal misconduct in a wide variety of industries, disciplines and corporate settings. In this episode, take a deep dive into the nuts and bolts of defense counsel working with a third-part independent monitor.

We began by exploring some basic questions around the attorney/client privilege, which belongs to the client and not the lawyer. Further, if a third-party independent monitor is retained by corporate legal to perform an assessment or review, it can be done under attorney/client privilege. It designed to give the company maximum information and flexibility to not have people being concerned about the information flow. It puts company’s in a position to make a decision on the possible self-disclosure. Not every issue needs to be self-reported nor does the government want to hear about every issue.

Stern emphasized that the privilege provides a company with the ability to self-disclose and, in some cases, to protect that information at least initially without worrying about being sued by private parties or class actions are securities cases. It allows an organization to “get an unvarnished view of the facts by an outsider or it goes to the lawyer who can assess it and discuss it with the client and then make a decision.” It allows you to explore such questions as: Do we need to report it? Should we report it? How should it be reported?” It can be a very powerful tool.

The bottom line is that companies cannot simply bring in a third-party independent, get a report or findings and then put their head in the sand. Stern believes being proactive means not simply bringing in an independent third-party but also using the information developed in a proactive manner. He said, “It is being aggressively proactive in fixing your problems. It is being as transparent as possible within that particular company’s environment. Identifying and fixing the problems, not only builds confidence internally within but provides assurance to the outside world; to shareholders, the media and government regulators that you are identifying your problems and fixing them yourself. This is the way to go.”